�山����

UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its jurisdiction by confirming that an appeal against the Order had no suspending effect and issuing a judgment on the merits while an appeal against the contested order was still pending with UNAT. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in declining to hold an additional case management discussion or to consider additional evidence as the Appellant failed to provide an adequate and convincing reason why his requests for further evidence or new case management discussion were not made earlier in the process as well as the relevancy of the evidence on the...

UNAT held that there was no legal basis to conclude that subjecting the Appellant to the managerial or supervisory authority of the director was unlawful. UNAT held that the decision to refuse a proposed restructuring of the line of supervision to accommodate the Appellant rested on rational legitimate concerns about the managerial prerogative, structural coherence, and institutional integrity. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT denied the request for an oral hearing on the basis that the factual and legal issues arising from the appeal were clearly defined and an oral hearing would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case. UNAT refused to consider information pertaining to a confidential settlement proposal made to the Appellant. UNAT held that while the absence of a response to a staff member’s request may constitute an implied administrative decision, the absence of a decision without direct legal consequences is not an implied decision subject to judicial review. UNAT held that in the...

Mr. Hammond’s appeal is defective, as it does not address the issue of receivability or the UNDT’s finding that his application contesting his 2016-2017 performance appraisal was not receivable. Mr. Hammond’s application was not receivable as the reclassification decision was taken by the General Assembly. It is not erroneous to call the reclassification of Mr. Hammond’s P-4 post to an FS-6 post a “conversion” or an “abolishment” because, in effect, this classification resulted in Mr. Hammond’s P-4 being abolished and replaced by, or converted into, an FS-6 post.

UNAT first dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that although the Administration has the discretion to reassign staff members, such reassignment must be reasonable in the particular circumstances and cause no economic harm to the staff member. It must also respect the procedural and substantive rules of law and must not be arbitrary. UNAT agreed with the UNDT that the reassignment was performance-related and yet the staff member was never allowed the opportunity to address his performance issues prior to being reassigned. Regarding the appeal, UNAT disagreed with the staff member that the UNDT...

Receivability/administrative decision: Preliminary decisions such as the choice of an appropriate basis for a staff member’s performance appraisal do not have direct legal effects on his/her rights. They can only be reviewed within the context of the assessment of the final decision, that is, the outcome of the staff member’s performance appraisal.Delegation of authority: A delegation of authority should not be guessed at or presumed. It must precede the taking of a decision and is not synonymous with retrospective rubberstamping.Classification of posts/generic job profiles: Section 2.2 of ST...

The Tribunal found: that the Applicant had established a case of prima facie unlawfulness; that the element of urgency was met and the harm suffered to the; Applicant’s reputation and career prospects if the decision was implemented could not be adequately compensated by monetary damages.

When reviewing the conditions set out in Article 13 of the RoP, the Tribunal considered whether, in the light of the allegation of non-performance, the proper procedure relating to performance and e-PAS had been followed. It found that the decision was prima facie unlawful because the Respondent did not thoroughly follow its own rules and/or practices (a) by deciding not to renew the Applicant’s appointment without allowing the rebuttal process to be completed, and (b) by its failure to ensure a timely implementation of the 2010-2011 e- PAS.

Assessment of prima facie unlawfulness: In the course of suspension of action proceedings sufficient proof of the facts must be presented in view of the strict time limits governing the suspension of action procedure.

Particular urgency: The requirement of particular urgency will not be satisfied if the urgency was created or caused by the applicant.